Richard Nixon wiretapped illegally and it was impeachable. Therefor, ditto W.

That according to noted Bolshevik and former Nixon White House counselor John Dean, that rara avis in the political arena: a truly honest man, at least the Watergate years.

Well, actually Dean does find a difference.

But not in W's favor, though, poor boy...:

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

and

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

And this fabulous news: The inmates take over control of the asylum from the security guards. I feel so much more secure with wingnuts in charge post-disaster than professionals. I mean the @$$#oles are doing such a superlative job with "homeland security" post 9/11 (well, it is better than during the 21 January - 11 September 2001 period, I'll give them that).

Military Service Chiefs Demoted in Line of Pentagon Succession

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 30, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (AP) - The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian under secretaries in the inner circle of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

A recent executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy. Mr. Rumsfeld is No. 1, and the second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position is vacant at the moment. The Army chief, who long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.

The changes, announced last week, mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering versus combat in 21st-century wars.

The line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the people holding those jobs.

But this version of the doomsday plan moves up the top three under secretaries, who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.

And the deal du jour: If the administration wants to find the person who dropped the dime on "W's" ilegal spyin', Justice should also clearly investigate illegal acts by W and the rest of the slime.

And the Abramoff scandal will be ending with a whimper, not a bang:

The plea agreement would secure the Republican lobbyist's testimony against several members of Congress who received favors from him or his clients.

Maybe it'll be enough. Come November, maybe GOP hegemony will die the death of a 1,000 cuts.

Dirty.

As if we didn't know. After all, if he didn't (which is to say, his people, or more specifically those for whom he's a, well, sock monkey), he wouldn't be president now, would he?

Anyway, he really, really likes it. Then again, he's his mama's little boy.

WaPo has it here (reg. reqd.).

These @$$holes have an outside company set up a website for them and they are supposed to be believed to be unaware what the site does when visited?? We're supposed to believe this crap (notwithstanding the Kool-Aid drinkers who cannot help but believe everything that comes out of the administration)?

From the AP via wired.com:

WhiteHouse.gov Uses Cookies, Bugs

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Unbeknown to the Bush administration, an outside contractor has been using internet tracking technologies that may be prohibited to analyze usage and traffic patterns at the White House's website, an official said Thursday.

David Almacy, the White House's internet director, promised an investigation into whether the practice is consistent with a 2003 policy from the White House's Office of Management and Budget banning the use of most such technologies at government sites.

"No one even knew it was happening," Almacy said. "We're going to work with the contractor to ensure that it's consistent with the OMB policy."

The acknowledgment came a day after the National Security Agency admitted it had erred in using banned "cookies" at its website. Both acknowledgments followed inquiries by The Associated Press.

The White House's website uses what's known as a web bug to anonymously keep track of who's visiting and when. A web bug is essentially a tiny graphic image -- a dot, really -- that's virtually invisible. In this case, the bug is pulled from a server maintained by the contractor, WebTrends, and lets the traffic analytic company know that another person has visited a specific page on the site.

Web bugs themselves are not prohibited.

But when these bugs are linked to a data file known as a "cookie" so that a site can tell if the same person has visited again, a federal agency using them must demonstrate a "compelling need," get a senior official's signoff and disclose such usage, said Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who helped draft the original rules.

The White House's privacy policy does not specially mention cookies or web bugs, and Almacy said the signoff was never sought because one was not thought to be required. He said his team was first informed of the cookie use by the AP.

In any case, Almacy said, no personal information was collected, and the cookie was used only to determine whether a visitor was a new or returning user.

It's not entirely clear how the cookies are created.

Cookies from the White House site do not appear to be generated simply by visiting it, according to analyses by the AP and by Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who first noticed the web bug this week.

Rather, WebTrends cookies are sometimes created when visiting other WebTrends clients. Smith said his analysis of network traffic shows such pre-existing cookies have then been used to recognize visitors to the White House site.

But WebTrends officials say they do not aggregate information about visitors across multiple sites, and when presented with Smith's data, referred inquiries to the White House. Almacy said it's possible the cookie resulted from the White House visit, adding he was awaiting further details from WebTrends.

In a statement, the company added that the analysis performed at the White House site is typical among organizations for improving user experience.

But Swire said a similar use of cookies had prompted the federal guidelines.

The Clinton administration first issued the strict rules on cookies in 2000 after its Office of National Drug Control Policy, through a contractor, had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. The rules were updated in 2003 by the Bush administration.

Although no personal information was collected at the time, Swire said, concerns were raised that one site's data could be linked later with those from the contractor's other clients.

"It all could be linked up after the fact, and that was enough to lead to the federal policy," Swire said.

Nonetheless, agencies occasionally violate the rules inadvertently. The CIA did in 2002, and the NSA more recently. The NSA disabled the cookies this week and blamed a recent upgrade to software that shipped with cookie settings already on.

Just spreading the word....

"Age does not bring wisdom, often it merely changes simple stupidity into arrogant conceit." -- Robert Heinlein

"Everybody is Ignorant, just on different subjects." -- Will Rogers

This almost made me laugh:

Q: What did George Bush do when he found out Tony Blair
got a nipple ring?
A: He got a Dick Cheney.

Well, it's a lying, thieving company that uses strongarm tactics to force God-awful products -- crap, actually -- down peoples' throats.

But Walt Mossberg (in the Journal), being a pro and all, has a somewhat better point, better made than I can make:

Some of you wonder why reviewers like me, writing for the non-IT part of the world, have consistently praised Apple products in recent years. One reason is that they are good. Another is that they have been unaffected (so far) by the plague of viruses and spyware that makes Windows users miserable. But an underlying reason is the focus on individual users.

There are some small, Windows-based PC companies that sell mainly to the non-IT world. The best example is Alienware; another is eMachines, now part of Gateway. But they tend to cater to narrower markets than Apple. Alienware is aimed mainly at gamers, eMachines at bargain hunters.

In my view, the world would be better off if the biggest computer companies started catering more to the non-IT part of the market, where most computers live.

By way of the Times:

Spy Agency Removes Illegal Tracking Files

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 29, 2005

The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most files of that type.

The files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week. Agency officials acknowledged yesterday that they had made a mistake.

Means only what one, you know, wants to, like, read into it. Just, you know, felt like running an image.

Or maybe we hate him a little less. Talking quantity, of course, not quality; fewer of us dislike him and/or hispolicies.

There were those who were, you could say, jealous that the administration was pushing for a more democratic Iraq than here at home what with illegal spying, election fixing and what all.

Well, apparently has a UN observer sign off on the 15 December election wasn't enough. Now an effort's going to be made to look harder, as it were, to make sure that secular Shiites and marginalized Sunnis did better than the numbers thus far appear. If only the people work at it, the results can come out as the administration wishes.

Notwithstanding the actual vote :)

James Ridgeway explains the loopholes in the anti-torture agrement with the administration. (Was about to say "with W" but who would believe W actually ever acts independently of his handlers? Certainly not here with this issue. "Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, who has negotiated with the senator for weeks....")

If you're too lazy to make the jump, short answer is: real big.

Too, how do you overtly forbid covert acts? In a zen sort of sense, if they're not admitted to, they couldn't have happened.

So you're really talking a rule firm as a limp noodle, or a security blanket. Feh.

Bottom line is that McCain is a tease, occasionally saying something really seductive. But it's a lie; the guy, as a senator, has never, ever really walked the walk. In a way, he's hollow; there's frequent party line-following, occasional seductive lip service -- and that's it.

And this is just another example.

This "amendment" of his is so empty of substance, one would think the administration was against it because it doesn't believe in law and would only ignore it anyway.

And here's the administration's utter and complete dishonesty and lack of any good faith:

''Obviously, we'll study the law carefully,'' Mr. Gonzales said. ''And to the extent that we have to conform our conduct in any way, we will do so. People need to understand what the limits are. And if people don't meet those limits, they're going to be investigated and they're going to be held accountable.''

(As quoted in the Times.)

Really?? None that was considered in the course of negotiation?? Is this @$$hole and idiot or thinks we are or at least the administration's Kool-Aid drinkers are? It's a completely imbecilic statement, sensible only to a wingnut.

To help W spread his lies about Iraq. Read it here (subscription only from my beloved Wall Street Journal).

All links to everything you want to know about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is here. And here.

Meanwhile, let's look at the stats for the FISA court here (would love to post it but no can do) and here.

Yup. The problem is clear -- if you live in a faith-based world. In the reality-based world, it looks pretty clear.

Meanwhile, Roberty Parry has a good point or two. Blogger's bouncing the post with the quotes, so you just have to jump the link and read it for yourself. Sorry! But there's some scary stuff that needs to be read....

Again from the Journal, if you subscribe:

Surgery Journal Threatens Ban For Authors' Hidden Conflicts

Conflict concerns led another medical journal, this one for surgeons, to crack down on authors who don't disclose medical-industry ties.

It would be nice and maybe even beneficial if all the medical journals went back to being medical journals instead of infomercials under the control of Big Pharma.

This got me really excited at first:

Latest Answer To Mideast Crisis: Fix the Economy

A former World Bank chief is betting that the Mideast conflict could use not only a political settlement but also an economic one. Now charged with fixing a beleaguered Palestinian economy, he believes prosperity will encourage peace.

(Read it here if you subscribe to wsj.com.)

A plan to make it easier for Palestinians to create wealth as they say as the path to peace in the Middle East, more precisley, between the Palestinians and Israel. (In the old days, the era before W, "peace in the Middle East" meant only peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Now....)

Then I caught myself: Western capitalism hasn't done the job there yet, at least not where it matters: Iran; Saudi Arabia; El-Qaeda; Indonesia. Then there's Singapore.

Western capitalism is exactly one of the fuels for the Islamofascist terrorists.

It's nice that the lives of an insignificantly small number of Palestinians will be improved by this plan but peace betwen the Palestinians and Israel? Don't think so.

By way of "Good Morning Silicon Valley":

December 27, 2005

Maybe you should rename it AIEEEEEEE!!!!!!

No wonder Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser is losing market share. According to network security outfit Scanit, Explorer is by far the least secure browser on the market. Scanit tracked three browsers over a year -- IE, Opera and Firefox -- noting the days on which they were "known unsafe." IE: a remotely exploitable security vulnerability had been announced, but had not yet been patched. Turns out IE was safe on only 7 out 365 days during 2004. In contrast Firefox was safe on 309 days and Opera on 300. An astonishing metric, even for those expecting the worst, and one that presents a very strong case for ditching IE if you haven't already.

Posted by John Paczkowski on 07:09 AM

Quality almost never sells. Crap forced down your throat does and thus Bill G is America's (the world's???) wealthiest person. But to accept crap when you have whatcha call a viable alternative... that's inexcuseable.

And them what did not.

From some email list to which I subscribe, but facts are facts:

Miltary Service

I must be fair about this list. I did not serve. My draft
number was 309. denis

A list of who served in the military and who did not
Prominent Democrats

Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year
career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple
Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel
in 1990. (1) Representative Richard Gephardt, former House
Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71.
(1, 2) Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United
States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2) Senate Minority Leader Tom
Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2) Former
Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to
Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the
20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase
twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's
Service Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g.
U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2) Senator
Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War
Two (1, 2) Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70;
Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards
of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army
1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1,2)
Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68;
Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1,2) Senator Ted
Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1) Senator Tom
Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,
1968-74. (1, 2) Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army
Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army
officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and
seven campaign ribbons. (1)

Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army
1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying
Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the
Soldier's Medal. (1, 2) Former Representative "Pete"
Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam,
and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the
Legion of Merit. (1, 2) Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff
sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade,
U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor -
volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded
Bronze Star with a combat "V." (1) Gray Davis, former
California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received
Bronze Star. (1) Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force
1955-57 Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate -
lengthy military career.

Prominent Republicans

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft,
did not serve. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -
avoided the draft, did not serve. House Majority Leader Tom
Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many
minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally
no room for patriotic folks like himself." House Majority
Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but
not such a friend to cats in Boston.) Majority Whip Mitch
McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1) Rick Santorum, R-PA,
third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the
draft, did not serve.

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy
(1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. (1) Served as
President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East and met
with Saddam Hussein twice in 1983 and 1984.
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment
really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war."
Huh? VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by
marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than
military service") (1) Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not
serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business
ed at SW Missouri State

Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. (1)

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve Former Speaker
Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1, 2)
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by
enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly
article). Enlisted only after the fighting was over in
Korea.
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?)
student deferments Senator John McCain - McCain's naval
honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of
Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why
did the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators
Cleland (D-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Kerrey (D- NE), Robb (D-VA)
and Hagel (R-NE) defended him. Former Senator Bob Dole -
an honorable man. http://www.bobdole.org/bio/ wwII.php
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star,
Vietnam. http:// www.senate.gov/~hagel/Information/bio.htm
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor,
received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air
Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations
Recently entered plea bargain on felony charges of bribery,
etc. etc. Senator Jeff Sessions U.S. Army Reserves,
1973-1986 Colin Powell-Obviously served. Representative
Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), served in USMC in Vietnam; wounded
in action. Back to AWOLBush.com home page
Tell some friends about this page!
Here are a few more...

Democrats

Chuck Robb, US Senator from Virginia, served in Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star George McGovern,
famous liberal, awarded Silver Star & DFC, dozens of
missions during WWII. Former President Bill Clinton -
avoided the draft through student deferments; in the
autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a
high number (311) and was never called to serve. (CNN
article.) "...it was his doubts about the morality of the
war and the Selective Service system that led him to
abandon the ROTC idea and to subject himself to a draft
lottery. Only the luck of the draw - a high lottery number
- kept him out. " (Jeff Greenfield, ABC News, quoting
Gov. Clinton.) Former President Jimmy Carter, most recent
recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, seven years in the
Navy. "Except for his fellow service-academy graduate
Dwight Eisenhower, no President of the twentieth century
spent more years in uniform than Carter." (New Yorker
Magazine) Former Vice President Walter Mondale, U.S. Army
1951-1953 Former Senator John Glenn, D-OH (1974-1999) -
Served in WWII and Korea; extensive military commendations
include the Distinguished Flying Cross on six occasions,
and the Air Medal with 18 Clusters. Congressman Tom Lantos,
D-CA - Did not serve in the US military; did serve in the
Hungarian anti-Nazi underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
Wallenberg, is the only Holocaust survivor to serve in
Congress.

Republicans/Conservatives

Political
Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve (1) Senator Jon Kyl,
R-AZ - did not serve (1, 2) Senator Tim Hutchison, R-AR -
did not serve (1, 2) Rep. Christopher Cox, R-CA, (formerly)
fifth-ranking Republican in the House - did not serve. (1)
Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-CA, sixth-ranking Republican in
the House - did not serve. Representative Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia - did not serve (1, 2), had a "bad knee"
(yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland's
patriotism) Former Representative JC Watts - did not serve
(1, 2) Jack Kemp, did not serve (1, 2) (was unfit because
of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a
National Football League quarterback for another eight
years - source) Former Vice President Dan Quayle, avoided
Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the
Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity
(at least he showed up for his duty, unlike GW) (1, 2)
Eliot Abrams, did not serve (1, 2) (however, played a key
role in subverting democracy in South America) Paul
Wolfowitz, did not serve (1, 2) Former Representative Vin
Weber, did not serve (1, 2) Richard Perle, did not serve
(1, 2) (is the current bloodshed in the Middle East a
direct result of his treasonous meddling in Clinton
Administrstion foreign policy?) Douglas Feith,
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy - did not serve. (1)
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve (1, 2) Michael Bloomberg, did
not serve (1, 2) George Pataki, did not serve (1, 2)
Spencer Abraham, did not serve John Engler, did not serve
(1, 2) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - website used to claim
service as a "Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm
veteran." A current biographical website makes no such
claim. In reality, was a National Guard lawyer who never
left South Carolina during the Gulf War. Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher, R-CA, did not serve (1) Rep. Darrell Issa,
R-CA/49th, there were some problems with his service.
Rep. John M. McHugh, R-NY - avoided the draft, did not
serve (1) Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA Republican Governor -
went AWOL from his Austrian army base to enter a body-
building competition.
George Herbert Walker Bush, pilot in WWII. Shot down by
the Japanese; was lone survivor out of airplane.
Tom Ridge, Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam (1)
Representative Sam R. Johnson, combat missions in both
Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi from April 1966 to February
1973 (1) (don't ever run for president Sam, they'll spread
rumors that you're crazy) Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, WW II
pilot, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals,
and the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China.
Sen. John Warner, R-VA - Served in the Navy during WWII as
a RM3 Congresswoman Heather Wilson, R-NM, served in the Air
Force 1978-1989 Former President Gerald Ford, served in the
Navy, WWII Former Senator Strom Thurmond - apparently
believes, along with Trent Lott, that America should
have been a segregated society. Still, he served.
Fighting Democrats

Back from the front lines and headed for Congress in 2006.

Paul Hackett - U.S. Senate - Ohio
Website: www.hackettforohio.com
Charles Brown - California 4th District - 26-year career in
USAF; jet and helicopter pilot; recently retired as Lt.
Colonel
Website: http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org
Patrick Murphy - Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District
Website: www.murphy06.com
Bryan Lentz - Pennslyvania's 7th Congressional District
Website: www.lentzforcongress.com
David Ashe - Virginia's 2nd Congressional District
Website: http://www.davidasheforcongress.com/
Andrew Duck - Maryland 6th Congressional District Website at
http://duckforcongress.org Eric
Massa - New York’s 29th District
Website: www.massaforcongress.com
Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores
Online) George Will, did not serve Chris
Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve.
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst'
[see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St.
Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve,
too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and
Fiji John Wayne, did not serve Pat Robertson - claimed
during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality,
was a "Liquor Officer."
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve
Charlie Daniels, did not serve
Ted Nugent, did not serve
Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1) Radio Host
Phil Hendrie, did not serve.
Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at
least he served.
Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when
Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.

Independents

Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Navy SEAL training, did UDT work
Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Navy 1956-1959 And let's not
forget the Coast Guard...

The wingnuts are fighting. The Amurican Family Association is so upset with "Rabid" Rick Santorum for suddenly deciding that doesn't like so-called Intelligent Design being taught, at least in science classes. Boo hoo hoo!

Not that the administration would agree, being faith-based and all.

1. The guerrilla war is being waged only in four provinces.

2. Iraqi Sunnis voting in the December 15 election is a sign that they are being drawn into the political process and might give up the armed insurgency.

3. The guerrillas are winning the war against US forces.

4. Iraqis are grateful for the US presence and want US forces there to help them build their country.

5. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, born in Iran in 1930, is close to the Iranian regime in Tehran.

6. There is a silent majority of middle class, secular-minded Iraqis who reject religious fundamentalism.

7. The new Iraqi constitution is a victory for Western, liberal values in the Middle East.

8. Iraq is already in a civil war, so it does not matter if the US simply withdraws precipitately, since the situation is as bad as it can get.

9. The US can buy off the Iraqis now supporting guerrilla action against US troops.

10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq.

Juan Cole explains.

Meanwhile, a parlimentary system seems so correct for a country based on factions. WHile we worked out a solution -- at least one that worked over 200 years with only one civil war or so -- why use that template while forcing democracy on a foreign country?

Really, really funny, specially when you keep in mind that the current president of the U.S. of A. really is a complete idiot (but then, he is his mother's son):

POTUS iPod: Totally Random
By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Friday, December 16, 2005; C03

Last spring, the White House shocked savvy music fans across the nation by disclosing that among the many tunes President Bush had downloaded onto his iPod was the raunchy "My Sharona" by the Knack. Eight months later, it appears POTUS, like any earplug-obsessive hipster, has changed his lineup a bit. At the end of an interview broadcast Wednesday night, Fox News anchor Brit Hume asked Bush to show him what's on his playlist these days.

We could analyze his choices ( The Archies ? ) and crack some snarky jokes (i.e., "took my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry -- well, until Katrina hit!") . . . but why not just sit back and see what happens when a couple of boomers get talking about music and that crazy new technology?

Bush : Beach Boys, Beatles, let's see, Alan Jackson, Alan Jackson, Alejandro, Alison Krauss, the Angels, the Archies, Aretha Franklin, the Beatles, Dan McLean. Remember him?

Hume: Don McLean.

Bush: I mean, Don McLean.

Hume: Does "American Pie," right?

Bush: Great song.

Hume: Yes, yes, great song.

Unidentified male: . . . which ones do you play?

Bush: All of these. I put it on shuffle. Dwight Yoakam. I've got the Shuffle, the, what is it called? The little.

Hume: Shuffle.

Bush: It looks like.

Hume: The Shuffle. That is the name of one of the models.

Bush: Yes, the Shuffle.

Hume: Called the Shuffle.

Bush: Lightweight, and crank it on, and you shuffle the Shuffle.

Hume: So you -- it plays . . .

Bush: Put it in my pocket, got the ear things on.

Hume: So it plays them in a random order.

Bush: Yes.

Hume: So you don't know what you're going to going to get.

Bush: No.

Hume: But you know --

Bush: And if you don't like it, you have got your little advance button. It's pretty high-tech stuff.

Hume: . . . be good to have one of those at home, wouldn't it?

Bush: Oh?

Hume: Yes, hit the button and whatever it is that's in your head -- gone.

Bush: . . . it's a bad day, just say, get out of here.

Hume: Well, that probably is pretty . . .

Bush: That works, too. ( Laughter )

Hume: Yes, right.

From the Journal:

At Medical Journal, Editor Finds Truth Hard to Track Down
The 12-year probe into the validity of a famous heart study points to a problem in medical research: Even prestigious journals have little power to detect or investigate questionable findings.

The story's here for we lucky subscribers.

I'm an attorney and still find this inspiring: A mom sued by the RIAA is going pro se (solo, attorneyless) defending herself:

Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press WriterSun Dec 25,10:33 AM ET

It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer, but the industry didn't see it that way. The woman from Wappingers Falls, about 80 miles north of New York City, is among the more than 16,000 people who have been sued for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks.

"I assumed that when I explained to them who I was and that I wasn't a computer downloader, it would just go away," she said in an interview. "I didn't really understand what it all meant. But they just kept insisting on a financial settlement."

The industry is demanding thousands of dollars to settle the case, but Santangelo, unlike the 3,700 defendants who have already settled, says she will stand on principle and fight the lawsuit.

"It's a moral issue," she said. "I can't sign something that says I agree to stop doing something I never did."

If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children. Santangelo, 43, has been described by a federal judge as "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her email." Kazaa is the peer-to-peer software program used to share files.

The drain on her resources to fight the case — she's divorced, has five children aged 7 to 19 and works as a property manager for a real estate company — forced her this month to drop her lawyer and begin representing herself.

"There was just no way I could continue on with a lawyer," she said. "I'm out $24,000 and we haven't even gone to trial."

So on Thursday she was all alone at the defense table before federal Magistrate Judge Mark Fox in White Plains, looking a little nervous and replying simply, "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to his questions about scheduling and exchange of evidence.

She did not look like someone who would have downloaded songs like Incubus' "Nowhere Fast," Godsmack's "Whatever" and Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life," all of which were allegedly found on her computer.

Her former lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says Santangelo doesn't really need him.

"I'm sure she's going to win," he said. "I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there."

Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, the coalition of music companies that is pressing the lawsuits, would not comment specifically on Santangelo's case.

"Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and give legal online services a chance to flourish," she said. "The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store."

The David-and-Goliath nature of the case has attracted considerable attention in the Internet community. To those who defend the right to such "peer-to-peer" networks and criticize the RIAA's tactics, Santangelo is a hero.

Jon Newton, founder of an Internet site critical of the record companies, said by e-mail that with all the settlements, "The impression created is all these people have been successfully prosecuted for some as-yet undefined 'crime'. And yet not one of them has so far appeared in a court or before a judge. ... She's doing it alone. She's a courageous woman to be taking on the multibillion-dollar music industry."

Santangelo said her biggest issue is with Kazaa for allowing children to download music without parental permission. "I should have gotten at least an e-mail or something notifying me," she said. Telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Australia-based owner of Kazaa, Sharman Networks Ltd., were not returned.

Because some cases are settled just before a trial and because it would be months before Santangelo's got that far, it's impossible to predict whether she might be the first to go to trial over music downloading.

But she vows that she's in the fight to stay.

"People say to me, `You're crazy. Why don't you just settle?' I could probably get out of the whole thing if I paid maybe $3,500 and signed their little document. But I won't do that."

Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004. Months later, there was a phone call from the industry's "settlement center," demanding about $7,500 "to keep me from being named in a lawsuit," Santangelo said.

Santangelo and Beckerman were confident they would win a motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the record companies had enough of a case to go forward. She said the issue was whether "an Internet-illiterate parent" could be held liable for her children's downloads.

Santangelo says she's learned a lot about computers in the past year.

"I read some of these blogs and they say, `Why didn't this woman have a firewall?' she said. "Well, I have a firewall now. I have a ton of security now."

So a few questions: Is hacking computers like this legal?

Maybe more important: Can these hack spies scumbags differentiate between an illegal download of a track and a song copied from a CD I actually bought in a store or, worse, from a legal online service?

History of the original PATRIOT Act: What is it? Who knows?

I mean, the thing came to the floors of Congress and was voted up and out within days of 9/11.

Well, it certainly wasn't discussed, drafted etc., all within those couple of days.

It had to been drafted and discussed well before 9/11.

So: Who, when and why?

Those are the questions.

And the answers?

Relevance?

If nothing else, may show the Cheney/Rove/Bush administration's history of respect for the law. Or maybe something kind of creepier.

There's a difference between the desire for a strong exeutive -- hell, it's practically mandatory -- and the radicals now in chare. A big difference.

Too much text on this page. Gotta fix that with a little Zippy and a flowchart of good conservtive fiscal responsibility straight from the White House.

Neither intelligent nor honest:

Investigate perjury in Dover ID case
Judge Jones issued a broad, sensible ruling - finding that some board members lied.
Daily Record/Sunday News

Dec 21, 2005 — They lied.

William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell wanted to bring God into high school biology class, and in the process, they lied.

They lied about their motives.

They lied about their actions.

They lied about what they did or didn't say at public meetings.

They even lied when they claimed newspaper reporters lied in stories about Dover school board meetings.

In his ruling on the Dover case, U.S. Judge John E. Jones III said it was "ironic" that individuals who "proudly touted their religious convictions in public" would "lie" under oath.

Yes, ironic - at the very least. But also sinful according to the 9th Commandment.

And perhaps also criminal. We can only hope that the appropriate authorities are investigating possible perjury charges in this case. There should be some consequences for what Mr. Bonsell and Mr. Buckingham have done in depositions and on the witness stand by otherwise misrepresenting the facts.

Not to mention what they've done to their community.

They've cost Dover its reputation. The district, even after sensibly voting out the entire school board, again has been made a national laughingstock - last week "The Daily Show" aired yet another embarrassing and insulting piece on Dover.

They have potentially cost Dover taxpayers perhaps a million or more in legal fees. The judge has indicated the plaintiffs are entitled to such fees.

The unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed. They've damaged and divided this community, and there should be repercussions - a perjury investigation - beyond a lost election.

The ruling suggests board members who approved the ID policy were shockingly ill-informed and lackadaisical about what they were getting the district into. They allowed themselves, taxpayers and students to be made grunts on the front lines of the national culture wars without bothering to learn what they were fighting for.

Turns out it was a lie.

Intelligent design, as Judge Jones made abundantly clear in his 139-page ruling, is not science. ID has simply not earned a place in high school biology curricula as an either/or alternative to evolution.

The ruling reflects that evolution by natural selection is backed by mountains of evidence while ID has produced not one peer-reviewed paper.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

It doesn't mean the world wasn't intelligently designed.

It just means that in science you can't invoke the supernatural when you don't fully understand a natural process.

Judge Jones is to be congratulated for ruling broadly on the matter rather than taking the easy way out with some cramped, nondecision decision.

Unfortunately, this ground-breaking ruling is unlikely to become the settled law of the land because the new board seems unlikely to appeal it to the Supreme Court. Not that we advocate an appeal. Even the judge laments that so much money and time has been wasted on this "legal maelstrom."

In short, Judge Jones got it exactly right, eviscerating the pathetic case put forth by the defense. The district's policy was religiously motivated and espoused religion, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

No lie.

Of course, honesty is not one of those right wing values they promote.

How we should live our lives. Ralph Reed's spokeswoman tells everyone that she told her father-in-law that she has a big vagina. That's a shining example of family values and all that good exemplary Christian values that wingnuts set out for us. Lucky us.

Barron's editorial page writer, Thomas G. Donlan. Most right wingnuts are full of crap across the board. Donlan isn't, occasionally more right than I'm happy to adnit. This weekend, he's dead on the money. This may be serious. Wingnuts talking impeachment won't get W impeached (And it wouldn't accomplish much if he was) but all the buzz can only erode the administration's support and support for its congressional enablers going into 2006. It might be just like 1994 -- a stealth defeat.

So, a gift from Barron's:

EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Unwarranted Executive Power
The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws
By THOMAS G. DONLAN
Unnatural Disaster

AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers.

It was not a shock to learn that shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct intercepts of international phone calls to and from the United States. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to gather the foreign communications of people in the U.S. -- without a warrant if quick action is important. But the law requires that, within 72 hours, investigators must go to a special secret court for a retroactive warrant.

The USA Patriot Act permits some exceptions to its general rules about warrants for wiretaps and searches, including a 15-day exception for searches in time of war. And there may be a controlling legal authority in the Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution that authorized the president to go after terrorists and use all necessary and appropriate force. It was not a declaration of war in a constitutional sense, but it may have been close enough for government work.

Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years.

In that time, Congress has extensively debated the rules on wiretaps and other forms of domestic surveillance. Administration officials have spent many hours before many committees urging lawmakers to provide them with great latitude. Congress acted, and the president signed.

Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.

"We also believe the president has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander-in-chief, to engage in this kind of activity," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Department of Justice made a similar assertion as far back as 2002, saying in a legal brief: "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that Constitutional authority." Gonzales last week declined to declassify relevant legal reviews made by the Department of Justice.

Perhaps they were researched in a Star Chamber? Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.

Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

Even the Bolsheviks at the NSA (National Security Agency) -- the guys doing the spying (per W's orders) -- say it's illegal (from the NSA website!):

Americans expect NSA to conduct its missions within the law. But given the inherently secret nature of those missions, how can Americans be sure that the Agency does not invade their privacy?

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution demands it... oversight committees within all three branches of the U.S. government ensure it... and NSA employees, as U.S. citizens, have a vested interest in upholding it. Respecting the law is only a part of gaining Americans' trust.

The American people need to know, within the bounds of operational security, what NSA does and why they do it, and how they work within the Intelligence community and the Department of Defense to protect the Nation's freedom.

With each new day, NSA is writing new and unexpected chapters. The missions have never been clearer. The challenges have never been greater. The stakes have never been higher.

Atrios spells it out nicely and simply and worth running in toto:

Wonk Off

Garance and Kevin, responding tolWaMo profile of Markos discuss the lack of blogospheric wonkery.

I've said this before, but there's just little point in detail-oriented grand policy proposals when Bush and Republicans are in office. Just about everything their side offers up involves tax cuts, corporate pork, or cuts to programs that help keep granny from freezing to death in winter. The rest are complete disasters for obvious reason, like the Medicare drug plan, and there's really not much to discuss.

If our team actually had some power we could be debating the merits of various universal health care proposals, or considering just how large a minimum wage increase might be appropriate, or various other wonky things. It would be good fun. But we live in an unserious age where the people running the government have no interest in policy and the people not running government have no ability to get anything passed without having anything good about it destroyed by the Republicans.

The 90s were a delightfully wonky era when serious center-left political types spent lots of time debating lots of things. We had a wonky president, a wonky vice president, and an utterly bored press corps, until the blow jobs happened anyway. I'd like a chance to spend more time talking about how policy matters, but the space just isn't really there right now.

From Josh:

(December 20, 2005 -- 01:04 AM EDT)

William Kristol and Gary Schmitt have a column in today's Washington Post that advances a simple premise: the president "uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." While Congress legislates for the 'in general', the president is the one who must face particular crises, ones whose dimensions, dangers and particularities legislators could not have foreseen. This mix of responsibility and authority gives the president the unique and awesome power to set aside Congress's laws in the over-riding interest of securing the nation.

This is a doctrine fraught with danger in a constitutional republic. But it is not a new theory and it is not without some merit.

A little more than a year ago, I discussed this in a post about an earlier Pentagon report which argued that the power to set aside laws is "inherent in the president." That principle is simply not reconcilable with the principles of our republic. But no less a man than Thomas Jefferson considered a possible exception ...

If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson -- when he was later thinking over the implications of his arguably unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase (and again this is from memory -- so perhaps someone can check for me) -- argued that the president might find himself in a position in which he might have the right or even the duty to disregard the law or some stricture of the constitution in the higher interests of the Republic.
Jefferson's argument, however, wasn't that the president had the prerogative to set aside the law. It was that the president might find himself in a position of extremity in which there was simply no time to canvass the people or a situation in which there was no practicable way to bring the relevant information before them. In such a case the president might have an extra-constitutional right (if there can be such a thing) or even an obligation to act in what he understands to be the best interests of the Republic.

The clearest instance of this would be a case where the president faced a choice between letting the Republic be destroyed or violating one of its laws.

But that wasn't the end of his point. Having taken such a step, it would then be the obligation of the president to throw himself on the mercy of the public, letting them know the full scope of the facts and circumstances he had faced and leave it to them -- or rather their representatives or the courts -- to impeach him or indict those who had taken it upon themselves to act outside the law.

As I recall Jefferson's argument there was never any thought that the president had the power to prevent future prosecutions of himself or those acting at his behest. Indeed, such a follow-on claim would explode whatever sense there is in Jefferson's argument.

If you see the logic of Jefferson's argument it is not that the president is above the law or that he can set aside laws, it is that the president may have a moral authority or obligation to break the law in the interests of the Republic itself -- subject to submitting himself for punishment for breaking its laws, even in its own defense. Jefferson's argument was very much one of executive self-sacrifice rather than prerogative.

This is where Kristol and Schmitt's hypothesizing fails republican muster. The president may well find himself or herself in situations that the Congress could not have anticipated or ones where the well-being of the country requires the president to ignore the letter of the law. (Only in the most extreme cases is this even conceivable -- but at least for the sake of conversation let's posit the possibility.) But the factor here is not the president's unique ability to judge these matters; the issue is time and urgency. Certainly, at the first practicable moment the president has to take the matter before the appropriate members of Congress, explain himself, request that the relevant laws be revised and open himself up to the possibility of real accountability for his actions.

And yet it seems pretty clear that this is not what the president did. The White House gave briefings to four or six members of Congress and then prevented them from discussing the matter either with colleagues or with staff. That makes the consultation pretty close to meaningless.

Kristol and Schmitt conclude by writing ...

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.
But this makes no sense. The Congress can't hold the president accountable or legislate on these matters for the future if they're never informed of what the president is doing. That's obvious. There may be some situations Congress can't have foreseen in advance; but Kristol and Schmitt are talking about a situation the president has prevented the Congress from considering even after the fact.

That's the end of constitutional government. No individual is absolute in a democratic republic. But this principle allows the president to make himself just that.

-- Josh Marshall

Gene Lyons nails it. So to speak.

Too gnarly to summarize, but see this and this.

I'm stumped, dunno exactly how this is appropriate for the holiday, but here it is anyway, from the General.

From Kevin Drum (more at the link including live links in the post), read it and weep....

December 20, 2005

WARTIME....Do President Bush's inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief give him the authority to override federal law and approve domestic spying by the NSA? That's certainly the justification he provided at Monday's press conference:

Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.

Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt support this assessment in the Washington Post today, and they've been joined by a small army of other commentators.

Of course, their argument is not that the president has the inherent power to authorize domestic surveillance anytime he wants, only that he has that power during wartime. And as near as I can tell, that's the elephant in the room that no one is really very anxious to discuss: What is "wartime"? Is George Bush really a "wartime president," as he's so fond of calling himself? Conservatives take it for granted that he is, while liberals tend to avoid the subject entirely for fear of being thought unserious about the War on Terror. But it's something that ought be brought up and discussed openly.

Consider a different war, for example. It's safe to say that whatever Bush's NSA program actually involves, no one would have batted an eyelash if FDR had approved a similar program during World War II. Experience suggests that during a period of genuine, all-out war, few people complain when a president pushes the boundaries of the law based on military necessity. But aside from World War II, what else counts as wartime?

If you count only serious hot wars, the United States has been at war for over 20 of the 65 years since 1940. That's a lot of "wartime."

However, if you count the Cold War, as conservatives generally think we should, the tally shoots up to about 50 years of war. That means the United States has been almost continuously at war during the past 65 years — and given the nature of the War on Terror, we'll continue to be at war for the next several decades.

If this is how we define "wartime," it means that in the century from 1940 to 2040 the president will have had emergency wartime powers for virtually the entire time. But does that make sense? Is anyone really comfortable with the idea that three decades from now the president of the United States will have had wartime executive powers for nearly a continuous century?

Somehow we need to come to grips with this. There's "wartime" and then there's "wartime," and not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers. George Bush may have the best intentions in the world — and in this case he probably did have the best intentions in the world — but that still doesn't mean he has the kind of plenary power Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt exercised during their wars.

During a genuine emergency, the president's powers are at their most expansive. The rest of the time they're more restricted, whether he considers himself a wartime president or not. Right now, if George Bush needs or wants greater authority than he currently has, he should ask Congress to give it to him — after all, they approve black programs all the time and are fully capable of holding closed hearings to debate sensitive national security issues. It's worth remembering that "regulation of the land and naval forces" is a power the constitution gives to Congress, and both Congress and the president ought to start taking that a little more seriously.

UPDATE: I haven't read all the comments, but a couple of emails have persuaded me that part of this post was sloppily worded. To make myself clear, then: although Presidents have increased authority during wartime, both in theory and in practice, that authority doesn't extend to deliberately violating acts of Congress. The president is required to obey the law during both war and peace. I've modified the post slightly to make that clearer.

From Josh:

(December 24, 2005 -- 08:07 PM EDT)

Department of article ledes you wish weren't so ironic, Xmas edition (courtesy of the NYT) ...

The commander of American-run prisons in Iraq says the military will not turn over any detainees or detention centers to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting United States standards for the care and custody of detainees.

To a new year with our national honor cleansed and restored.

-- Josh Marshall

Blogger rejected ny post about this so all I can do is give is the blog posting itself....

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Anti-Gay Lawmaker Retaliates Against Press

It's been a while since I wrote about the Sanctimonious State Senator, Jeff Miller (Cleveland). Miller is the anti-gay senator who crusades tirelessly to rid this state of gays and lesbians. He is the senator most responsible for getting the anti same-sex marriage bill on the ballot (2006) in Tennessee. Miller is also the senator who sought to prove his heterosexuality by growing a beard -- shortly after it was revealed that he has a gay brother.

After preaching endlessly about the need to keep marriage pure and sacred by keeping it for heterosexuals only, many of us were startled when the lawmaker's wife sued for divorce, and charged that Miller was cheating on her.

Ah, but the holier-than-thou crusading lawmaker has since found someone new to persecute. Not content to confine himself to the persecution of gays and lesbians, Miller is now crusading against the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The sanctimous lawmaker has a problem with a newspapers that dare to criticize or mock him.

In a story in the Bradley News Weekly, entitled, The Jeffster Gets Ugly, Barry Graham reports:

So, it seems Jeff Miller didn't like our cover story about him a couple weeks ago. We discovered today that he's threatening our advertisers. Bad boy, Jeffy. Remember how you tried to sponsor a bill to put us out of business? Don't you ever learn?

With Andy Wells in tow, armed with a camera, I went to the Sanctimonious Senator's office this afternoon, holding a copy of the threatening letter. He wasn't around, so I told his long-suffering secretary that we were doing a story for next week about how he's threatening businesses that advertise with us, and asking if he'd like to comment.

Here's what he wrote to our advertisers:

"Myself and many others are going to be watching in the next several weeks to identify and remember those in this community that wish to subsidize the destructive nature of this type of publication in our community."

What a guy. Well, Jeffy, you and your merry men may be watching our advertisers - but we are watching you.

Below is a scathing editorial that has the alleged hetero Miller in a tizzy. Kudos to the fearless Bradley News Weekly for proving that there is too a free and liberal press in this red state. And shame on you Sen. Miller for using the power accrued from your position as lawmaker to attempt to whip the press into line by assaulting their First Amendment right to mock and ridicule you.

Romance is Still Alive and Well in Cleveland

In this age of selfishness, we have to take our hats off to Senator Jeff Miller. Sure, he's useless as a public servant, since he doesn't show up at the Senate, and he's useless as a Delinquent Tax Attorney, since he doesn't show up in court when he's supposed to (though he still gets paid upwards of $70,000, so no harm done there)... but we can't deny that the guy knows how to treat a lady right.

Well, maybe not every lady. His soon-to-be-ex-wife probably doesn't appreciate how he's treated her. Most women don't appreciate their husbands espousing family values and then having an affair with one of their employees and then lying about it.

But, but, but... we're not going to be negative. Because, if you're not Mrs. Miller, the Senator knows a thing or two about romance. Lest you doubt us, consider what he did earlier this week. His divorce trial was supposed to start on Tuesday. We were looking forward to it, but apparently he wasn't. He didn't want to go to trial, and we can't say we blame him. He wasn't going to come out of it looking very good - especially if it's true that he was planning to represent himself, in which case a fool of a client would have had a fool of an attorney.

Anyway, Miller apparently decided to agree to settle with his wife, and was supposed to sign the divorce papers on Monday. And, when he came to town to take care of this business, who did he bring with him? His girlfriend. Jessa Fahey. The one he had an affair with. The lucky lady who's now his primary squeeze. . .

Also from the Bradley News Weekly: Miller Comes to Town with Girlfriend, Doesn't Get Divorced

And remember, these folks rule us, even this jerk.

The benefits of lawbreakin':

Defending our values, brutally

President George W. Bush
United States of America

Dear President Bush,

Back in the mid eighties, I attended a lecture by Vladimir Posner, a Soviet journalist/KGB agent who was making appearances all across the country touting Mikhail Gorbachev's new policy of openness. Americans looked upon Glasnost suspiciously at that time. Many patriots thought it might be a trick to lull us into dropping our guard. I certainly thought so then and continue to believe so today.

I decided that I'd try to trip him up during the Q&A, so I asked him to comment on a report that Gorbachev had denounced Khrushchev and praised Stalin during a speech to the Communist Party Central Committee. Posner replied that Americans were too hard on Stalin. He said, "How do you turn an agricultural society into an industrial one in less than twenty years? You do it brutally."

I was reminded of that today as I thought about how you've set yourself free from the constraints of the Constitution and federal law so that you could wiretap and spy on American citizens. You seem to understand Stalin. You know how important harmony is to society and you'll go to any length, including placing yourself above the law, to achieve it.

As you know, one of the greatest threats America faces is the deterioration of our commitment to traditional family values. It's every bit as great a threat to our national security as the distribution of Mao's Little Red Book to college students. We need to oppose it with every means at our disposal.

My neighborhood is currently under assault by those who are trying to undermine our nation by attacking our traditional family values. I hope we can use your new extra-legal power to provide us with cover as we do what must be done to defend our community.

You see, Mr Garcia, the neighbor across the street, often stands in front of his large picture window wearing nothing but a pair of extremely tight bicycling shorts. Nothing is left to the imagination. His unnaturally large manly bulge of glory draws every eye in the neighborhood, tempting its beholders with demonic invitations to engage in acts of unspeakable depravity.

We've tried everything we can think of to put an end to it. Even my wife, Ofjoshua, spends much of her day over there unsuccessfully trying to convince Mr. Garcia to end this practice. Nothing's worked.

It's time to take it up a level by beating Mr. Garcia and burning down his house. I'm hoping that we can get your support to do so. Inasmuch as you are not bound by any constitutional or legal restraints, you could grant us the authority to commit this assault and arson on your behalf in the name of national security.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Been neglectful, but I am required to note at least once in the life of this blog my special reason for finding Episodes I-III so enervating. (Find your own link to this one; it's kind of easy!)

It's not just that they're bloated and slow moving and that the first features a kid actor.

It's the context: the disintegration of a democracy (of sorts) into an oppressive fascist state, instigated, initiated and enabled by those for whom wealth is all, even as the same, albeit on a lesser scale, was occurring here. Memo to GL: movies are for escaping reality, not to be reminded of it; I didn't have this problem with Episodes IV-VI.

David Cole at The Nation nails it for you.

For this year. For ever. A middlebrow analysis of the war.

Of course, as the war was started by a right wingnut, the focus is a little... off.

Much of the over-secularization is from the retail sector of the economy trying to hype the gift-buying season. I might not be encouraged to shop shop shop if I'm not buying Christmas gifts. But I maybe can be hopped up to shop if it's for another holiday that I celebrate. Retailing is not about letting any sale be lost.

So, you wingnuts, where's the blame for the major instigators? Lost in the noise of lies.

Too, this "Happy Holidays" crap isn't actually secular. It's inclusive, reflective of, well, a multi-cultural society. When my kid celebrates the holidays in her public school, they're celebrating Christmas among others; ain't nothing exclusive going on.

As for some of the examples the wingnuts find of what can be called over-secularization -- well, for any given rule, there's at least one exceptions. There's always aberrations.

Like a cable news channel that's 99.9% (an approximation, not an exaggeration) lies.

Congressional leaders told of W's lawbreaking and most acquiesced, to some degree or another.

Water carrying at it's most typical. At least they had the decency at the Times not to run such a scummy piece on the front page.

Of course, as it's water carrying, not journalism as we understand it, a couple distortions render the piece pretty meaningless other than the fact that this piece of @$$ licking was published.

First, most of the leaders are Republicans. So what does anyone expect from the Kool-Aid drinking goose-steppers? Principled dissent? Or for that matter, from the minority party? Like their opinions mattered? What did the reporter want the Dems to do?

Second, the article is not discussing a law that authorized W's impeachable lawbreaking and dishonoring of the Constitution and our system of law. It regards notification to Congress of an Administration fiat.

So a misreported article that muddies an issue.

Or maybe the reporter is a member of the secret legion of undercover lobbyists??

First, I am amazed how the wingnuts can keep cranking out all their demented, perverted stuff. Off the front page is an article on one of the worst, John C. Yoo. As I recollect, he's the one that fabricated an arguement that the Geneva accords don't apply to the war on terror as well as a legal justification for terror. The article tells you almost everything except the why and how of this perverse life.

I should qualify my bewilderment. I realize sometimes that for a lot of these guys, being utterly full of $#!t is how they make a pretty nice living.

That's also a segue to the seconf front pager, an article about the secret legion of undercover lobbyists. An adequate enough piece. Except for the omission about the Times' role in the game. Give Keller's Times a year or two to notice and address the omission.

Find the word that sounds weird coming from the Irish guy (there's a hint in the quote):

CS: What was unique about Richard's style of direction that made you think this would work?

Brosnan: There wasn't really. Hope, Greg and I came to it because he put the roadmap down so well. We all saw the funny side, we saw the irony of it. He's telling me about his dead son and the tragedy, and now I'm going to tell him a dirty joke about a guy with a 15-inch schlong. So as actors, you know this is coming and you know that this is going to turn the audience around. We couldn't get through it a few times, so Richard didn't have to direct. It was very simple.

(Emphasis added.)

David Sirota does a better job than me explaining the issue re warrantless surveillance.

Don't have time? Here's the spoiler: It's the illegality.

Hmm. Just realized we just got an impeachable president for Christmas. Or Hanukah. Or Kwanzaa. Or Whatever.

Does anyone want one? Here's one. Don't know why.... Does it matter? Has he ever spoken to anyone but his electoral base (other than when he called Adam Clymer an asshole, maybe)?

No, not that kind.

Martin Garbus is one of the rightous ones; he speaks, we listen. From the N.Y. Observer:

Police-State Powers Are Our Biggest Threat

By: Martin Garbus
Date: 12/26/2005
Page: 5

What has happened in this country?

The Pentagon has a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA). The courtroom is in a windowless room on the top floor of the Department of Justice. There are seven rotating judges. The court meets in secret, with no published opinions or public records. No one, except the FISA judge involved and the Department of Justice, knows what is done. No one, except the government and the FISA judge, knows at whom the warrants are aimed. There is no review by anyone. Over 12,000 search warrants permitting eavesdropping, surveillance and break-ins have been sought by the government. Only once has the FISA court denied a warrant.

The FISA court has issued more warrants than the more than 1,000 district judges in the federal system.

The Pentagon has already expanded its domestic-surveillance activity beyond any previous time in history. It breaks into homes, wiretaps and eavesdrops at will, and builds secret dossiers on citizens while arguing that there can be no judicial review of its activities. President George W. Bush argues that there can be no judicial review of any decision he makes when he decides whether an alien or an American citizen is or is not an enemy combatant. Congress supports this; so does the judiciary.

The expansion of Presidential powers and the expansion of police powers is the single most important issue facing this country. It is safe to say the new Supreme Court and a majority of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) are prepared to give Mr. Bush a blank check. On Nov. 15, Carl Levin, the liberal Democratic Senator from Michigan and an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, joined his Republican counterpart from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, in supporting legislation validating the President’s Alice-in-Wonderland legal system and the expansion of his police powers. The Senate vote was 79 to 16 in favor.

What’s more, the Patriot Act had been extended. For the last three years, the President has justified torture, and Congress will soon give him legal permission to use it.

If or when there’s another terrorist attack, the government will seek more powers, claiming that it shows current laws are inadequate. We will certainly see, as we recently saw in Britain, the head of government ask for 90-day detentions of terror suspects without access to court. The attempt to end habeas corpus started at Guantánamo; it is now spreading to the rest of America.

Five years after we opened the Guantánamo prison, not one person in that prison has been found guilty of anything.

The legal system to treat the new prisoners of the war on terror, created out of thin air, disgraces us. No one ever before suggested such a legal system—not during the Civil War, not during World War I or World War II, and not during the Cold War.

We are better than military commissions, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act and “rendition”—the sending of prisoners overseas to be tortured at C.I.A.-controlled prisons.

This country is approaching a dangerous turning point. There has long been a desire and a political movement in America for restrictions on democratic rights, for an authoritarian government propelled by a combination of religious and nationalistic fervor. The helplessness caused by the events of Sept. 11 and the domestic and international war against Muslim “terrorists” deepened this desire. Never before was there such a possibility of such long-term constitutional violations, because there has never before been such an open-ended war.

In Weimar Germany, a feeling of helplessness led to Hitler’s rise and the creation of the ultimate police state. There are similarities—and, of course, very significant differences—between America in the 21st century and Germany in the 1920’s.

Mr. Bush has suggested that he was chosen by God to lead the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The Nazi government, against religion, saw the salvation of the German people in messianic terms.

Many liberals and conservatives are concerned where all of this might lead. Professor Fritz Stern, a professor of German studies at Columbia University, pointed out that Hitler saw himself as “the instrument of providence” who fused his “racial dogma with Germanic Christianity.” Paul Craig Roberts, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former Wall Street Journal editor, writes of the “brownshirting” of American conservatism—he says the hype about terrorism serves little or “no purpose other than to build a police state that is far more dangerous to Americans than terrorists.”

The pressure for fascism comes not just from the top. Without the people’s support, the Weimar government would not have been overthrown.

The change here is incremental and harder to see.

How we conduct the “war on terror” tells the American people who we are and what this country stands for. America has the oldest and most dynamic democracy in the world. It can right itself if the people want it bad enough to fight harder.

Sorry about the poor resolution but it's David Levine so it's worth it.

Besides it's been too long since I posted any images... :)

And where? In science? Only in those remaining reality-based classes, I suppose. Social studies? Do they even have that anymore? Doesn't it sound like socialism? I'm sure that wouldn't fly.

From good old Slashdot:

Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005
Posted by Zonk on Friday December 23, @02:33PM
from the science-wins dept.

lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"

But isn't it rather late, about a 150-odd years late?

Bin Laden spotted! Some details and photo here.

W -- not just him of course; "his" administration, too -- is so deeply dishonest that he can't tell the truth even when he's telling the truth:

NYT: NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted

Dec 24, 2:29 AM (ET)

NEW YORK (AP) - The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls - without court orders - than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

Skip the Times; get the rest of the story here without a sub.

I must be punchy to be doing anything with this....

The official historian of Newark, N.J., has passed away! (And per a Google search twelve seconds ago, this story is exclusive to the Times -- and now maybe me?)

And I do apologise for what you call the bad form of this posting.

It almost makes one fear for next weekend....

That other obsession of mine, the breathlessly broad crappiness and dishonesty of Micro$oftl from Slashdot:

Microsoft Ends IE on the Mac

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday December 20, @10:14AM

from the clearly-macs-are-more-secure-now dept.

ron_ivi writes "Microsoft is to cease IE support for Apple's Mac on Dec 31st of this year." And with this change, every mac on the internet will become even more secure than their Windows based counterparts. CT Deja Vu 'eh? Sorry.

LOL.

W meets with Pinch and Keller to personally dissuade the Times from running that little piece about breaking the law and stuff (too big a quote but what the hey -- and it deserves being spread):

Bush’s Snoopgate

The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 5:48 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on Dec. 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extraconstitutional action.

* * *

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

Hahahahah! A joke!

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Another joke!

But there's more....

There's this headline of the day:

Mondo Washington
Bush Impeachment Not Out of the Question
From Spying to Plame, Congress riled over abuse of power
by James Ridgeway
December 21st, 2005 5:46 PM

Out of the question, no; something we'll see in our lifetime, hell, no, no way, take that to the bank. Another person who celebrated too hard at the office party.

But back to the main point: Why publish the story now?

Because the Times' own Woodward syndrome: one of the reporters was running it in a book he has coming out soon anyway:

Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story
The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say.
By James Rainey
Times Staff Writer

December 20, 2005

The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussions.

And then there's this ever so slightly spicier version.

Yes, yes, the fear was that Pinch and Keller may have been doing something out of principle. Of course, if they were, they wouldn't have been any reason to meet with W about it.